Nathan wrote:
> Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> To abuse an overused quote: "And now you have two problems."
>>
>> Firstly, you have an additional kitten (URI) to pay for with the
>> descriptions resource in addition to the other URIs.
>>
>> Secondly, the semantics of your descriptions resource are unclear. Is it an
>> information resource or not? Is it a conceptual set of all of the formats
>> of the descriptions of the original resource? If so, shouldn't it have its
>> own description? If it's not that, what is it? If it is, how do you
>> negotiate for which format you want the description of the set to be in,
>> rather than the item from the set?
>
> disagree (but also get your point and disagree in the nicest way
> possible); neither the html document or the rdf are the description. the
> description is a different thing entirely which is contained by either
> the html document or the rdf document.
>
> /resource/London
> rdfs:label "London"@en ;
> isPrimaryTopicOf /description/London .
>
> /description/London
> primaryTopic /resource/London ;
> isPrimaryTopicOf /description/London.html,
> /description/London.rdf .
>
> /description/London.html a Document .
> /description/London.rdf a Document .
>
>
> Thus you already always have the /descriptions/London resource.
>
> nb: there is something about justifying the use of /descriptions/London
> as a negotiation point in addition to it being the identifier of the
> description that is niggling me, i.e. which status code to use and
> whether to use content-location or just Location. I am though certain
> that just a blog post html page is the primaryTopicOf the sioc:Post, the
> rdf and html in this example are the primaryTopicOf the description.
>
:| don't ask me what I said there.. I meant..
I am though certain that just a sioc:Post is the primary topic of an
blog post html page, the description is the primary topic of the rdf and
html in this example.
!